Submitter: J. Stephen Adamczyk
Submission Date: 2004-03-31
Reference Document: N1046
Subject: Validity of constant in unsigned long long range
Consider a constant 9223372036854775808 in a C99 implementation that has 64-bit two's complement long long, and no extended integer types.
220.127.116.11 says that an unsuffixed decimal constant has the first of the types on the following list into which its value will fit: int, long int, long long int. In this case, the value does not fit into any of those types, and there are no extended integer types to try. (The value would fit into unsigned long long, but that's not on the list.)
So I conclude that this constant is invalid, just as a grossly too-large constant (say, one consisting of a 1 followed by 1,000 zeroes) would be invalid. (And I think that's a good thing, because otherwise this constant could be unsigned on some implementations and signed on others that have larger extended integer types.)
However, I'm not sure 18.104.22.168 (or 6.4.4) says anything that requires an error, or even gives meaning to this constant. It doesn't say what happens if the constant doesn't fit in any type on its list and there are no extended integer types.
Is this a defect, or was this intentionally worded vaguely to allow latitude to implementations?
A related issue comes up with UINT64_C(9223372036854775808). One plausible implementation for the macro UINT64_C would seem to be to cast the constant to the proper type. However, that does not work in this particular case, because the constant before casting is the same invalid constant discussed above. Another plausible implementation (and suggested by 22.214.171.124p2) is to concatenate a suffix to the constant, e.g., a "U" in this case. Sounds good, but 7.18.4p2 doesn't say that the argument to the macro must be an unsuffixed constant; indeed it says that the syntax must match 126.96.36.199, which implies that a suffix is allowed.
So if 9223372036854775808 is an invalid constant, it seems that an implementation must rely on compiler magic to get UINT64_C right; the tricks available with standard macros don't work.
Suggested Technical Corrigendum
The Committee believes that the Constraint in 6.4.4 applies, and that a constant must have a type. If a type cannot be assigned, the program is invalid and violates the Constraint.
The second part involves uint64_c. The macros were not intended to be very smart. It is permissible for them to use compiler magic.
Change the constraint in 6.4.4 to read:
Each constant shall have a type and the value of a constant shall be in the range of representable values for its type.Add the following sentence as last sentence of the paragraph after the list in 188.8.131.52:
If an integer constant cannot be represented by any type in its list and has no extended integer type, then the integer constant has no type.
7.18.4, paragraph 2 - change
"a decimal, octal, or hexadecimal constant"to
"an unsuffixed integer constant".
Previous Defect Report < - > Next Defect Report